Gordon Neill wrote:There's quite an odd contrast between SOTW and fRoots. The latter has significantly more members who have posted between 10 and 99 times. But then SOTW streaks ahead in the numbers who have posted more than 100 times. Why does SOTW attract such tenacious obsessives, while fRoots posters tend to show more restraint?

Never mind the quantity how about the quality of the posts? (laugh) I could have clocked up my stats with numerous "me too" or "I agree" responses. What was that remark made, I think, by Disraeli - there's lies, damned lies and statistics? There with this I've clocked up another notch on the counter. (louder laugh)

Never mind the quantity how about the quality of the posts? (laugh) I could have clocked up my stats with numerous "me too" or "I agree" responses. What was that remark made, I think, by Disraeli - there's lies, damned lies and statistics? There with this I've clocked up another notch on the counter. (louder laugh)

Alan "I agree"

Is that remark by Disraeli on the Cream Lp if so which track?

Just one other thing ... I've taken to standing up, like they do in parliament you know ...when they agree or disagree with something.

right, time to sit back down and go back to sleep until something happens.

It probably was but my Oxford Dictionary Of Quotations appears to be AWOL hence my caution when quoting.

Guys, let me bring peace and harmony , as is my way (LOL). You are both right! The first use of 'Lies, damned lies and statistics' in print appears to be in Twain's autobiography, published posthumously in 1924 -where he attributes it to Disraeli half a century earlier.

CantSleepClownsWillGetMe wrote:I had a spare hour at lunchtime and, because I was curious how SoTW would stand up against another forum (I chose fRoots) on its poster figures, I did a few calculations relating to number of members and the spread of postings.

fRoots has 1139 members. SoTW 885 members (as of lunchtime today)

Looking at the total postings made on each forum, a couple of things emerged:

Both have 'lurker' members, who have never posted: fRoots 35% of total forum members. SoTW 54% of total. Both have members who have posted between 1 and 5 times: fRoots 48%. SoTw 30.5% Both have a small number of high volume posters (posting between 101 times and max): fRoots 1.67%. SoTW 5.5%.

(Interestingly the 0 - 5 postings total percentages are very similar for both sites - fRoots 83% and SoTW 84.5%)

So clearly this forum's not as attractive to new posters as fRoots is.

Fascinating stuff, June, and I guess that's one conclusion that could be drawn. But I see it more as an assumption, because I know about a dozen people (I'm sure others know many more) who are quite happy to lurk on this forum for reasons other than fear, unattractiveness or intimidation (only about two of those people occasionally look at the fRoots forum). Some of these people don't even bother signing up as a member, so I'm not sure how you can ever get a complete picture when you are discounting what I would guess is the vast majority of visitors to the two sites.

Not only that, but I would toss in my own assumption - that is, that more lurkers sign up as members of this forum than fRoots' simply because this one is busier, ie there's a greater necessity to utilise the "View posts since last visit" option here than over there. I don't think you can conclude, therefore, that a higher proportion of non-posting members represents a bigger posting fear factor.

On the broader question of how to make the forum friendlier to newbies? I don't know; if I had a pound for every time the question was asked as to how we regulars could be less intimidating (other than just disappearing altogether, thereby letting in a whole new raft of 'dominators', presumably) I'd have an extra....oooh, at least 8 pounds. But nobody has yet come up with constructive feedback as to what we are doing wrong. I asked Boi for examples of friendlier forums in response to his (I hesitate to use the word diatribe, so I'll settle on) discourse about what's holding potential posters back, but none has as yet been forthcoming. Having briefly lurked in some pretty contentious places over the years, I'm genuinely struggling to see where we are going wrong, especially considering that in many of these places the term "fuckwit" would be considered a friendly poke at a poster, whereas here its use has resulted in us losing four of our best members (plus Des :-)).

So let's turn the question on its head - are we too nice here? Are some people 'afraid' to post because they know they would end up saying something that would result in a flame war? Don't get me wrong, I think Des was completely out of order with what he wrote about Nikki, and if he did it in person I know I'd be part of a long line of people queuing up to make sure he'd have to spit out a few teeth before doing it again. But there have been occasions when milder comments have caused issues, and maybe a more hard-nosed approach would ironically result in the forum being a more attractive place to post?

(A bit of a Devil's Advocate argument that, but after nearly 4 years of this subject, it just feels like time to look at it from a different angle)

Con Murphy wrote:I know about a dozen people (I'm sure others know many more) who are quite happy to lurk on this forum for reasons other than fear, unattractiveness or intimidation

What are their reasons Con ? I can imagine some pro's - musicians, DJs, critics, promoters and record label people might want to stay in the loop, or dip in now and then without getting involved. But are there some other reasons being overlooked, like : "can't be bothered" ? I don't really rate that as a reason cos it's just as much 'bother' to read them as make an occassional post ;-)

bovvered ? me ?

Ps The reception committee stands ready for Ritchie tonight; I reckon he may hit the half-milleniary. I've created a lovely Hawaiian garland of imitation flowers out of leftovers, fluff, lint and sweetwrappers

The Sound of the world is a subject of limited, specialist interest. I guess that most punters look in from time to time to see what's going on, but are happy to leave it at that.
Con is spot on. There's remarkably little that's wrong with this forum. (other) Posters are intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate - a rather unique situation in Internet land. If that is off-putting to newbies, well, as we say here in Japan, shoganai.[code][/code]

Yes, I'm with Con on that. There's nothing much wrong, and I don't think it is at all intimidating or whatever for new posters. Gordon, your post match analysis could be read in another way: the fRoots posters get bored after a while and drift off, whereas the SOTW mob stay interested and keep posting. I also agree that many people, including myself, enjoy the info and the repartee without feeling obliged to weigh in that often, if at all. For some, I guess it is like a magazine, a good read. It's like calling a meeting - lots of people might be interested, but only a few will turn up, and even less will speak up. Doesn't mean they're not interested though. Anyway, I have noticed these occasional bouts of introspection and self flagellation tend to lead nowhere, except a potential spat, and we couldn't possibly want another one of those now, would we?

What I was really attempting to do was look for clues using the only information readily available to all of us. I had hoped that any perceived failings could be addressed (if they even need to be addressed) without mentioning any specifics of the many insults that were used in the recent flare-up (albeit that Con mentioned only one of them).

But I do think those figures were useful. They are all accurate, and representative of how things stood at one moment in time. I appreciate what Joel said about no account being taken of the timescales involved. But, since the same criteria is being applied to both sets of figures, and because it was an analysis of member numbers and how many times all members had posted during their term of membership, I still felt it was relevant.

I'm still mulling over that Supernova theory though. We're told that fRoots has a history of regular medium-sized blowups. Therefore, might it be safe to assume that errant members are more regularly cautioned when things get out of hand? This, perhaps, encourages onlookers because they know there's a safety mechanism in place on the site.
Here, on the other hand, we have regular mini-squabbles, jokes and wind-ups. We all know that they're not serious and that they'll soon be forgotten. Our Supernova (supernovum? supernovas?..) are limited to quarterly or perhaps even 6 monthly occurrences! Pretty good going I would have thought. But do casual onlookers see these squabbles, jokes etc as being serious and feel hesitant about joining in because they interpret them as being unpoliced (as it were)? My feeling is that they do.

But would we get the same free flow of thought or 'lively' exchanges if Charlie were to take on a heavier policing role? No, I honestly don't think we would. Possibly, if he adopted a sort of kindly 'Dixon of Dock Green' persona and sent a simple (as someone else suggested) "Forum Decorum?!" PM to act as a nudge to a potential offender, it might work! Just a thought :)